I thought the idea was to reduce the number of languages.
Much as I like the idea, you are going to have to put the run-time library on every box that runs it, and for every OS we want to browse the net with (eg BeOS, OS/2, Linux, BSD, UN*X, Windoze). Isn't it time we started to sit down and come up with a STANDARD!!!
Many of the older folk will no doubt recall the good old days, when you used to make up a deck of cards and take them down to the computer centre to run...
Single tasking productivity is all well and fine if no-one's waiting on your work, and you have total control. But very few people have this, so we have to multitask our activities.
Also, most people don't like to be on the end of a single-tasking help desk. Put your hand up if you like calling a help desk, and waiting an hour for an answer to a routine access request.
Multitasking is the answer - and you know that, for sure.
And yes, I do more under multitasking environments than under single environments, because I can use the "wasted" cycles in low priority background threads, which require little input. Checking on them gives me a break from the foregound threads, and helps me "look busy" for bosses who need that sort of thing.
The process is similar to a burger-bun monopoly insisting that every burger chain sells Coke. It just would not happen.
MS does not "own" the first load screen: this is the domain of the OEM, who assemble the machines. If an OEM does a deal with AOL or MSN, then they should be allowed to load that software. They're the ones supporting that product.
Also, MS would be using its market position in one market (OS) to gain a unfair advantage in another (free placement of their ISP), which becomes a predatory pricing issue [since their placements are at a lower cost than their competitors].
It's not the same as telling McDonalds not to sell their Macs elsewhere, it's more akin to telling Macs that if you use our buns for your burgers, you have to sell our softdrinks. Therein lies the difference.
This idea is not stupid at all. You could have competing Windows, OS/2 and Linux distros, with different bundled software.
For example, you could buy say, Red Hat Linux, or Lotus OS/2 or eCommStation, and run the install yourself. It would be better than the current recovery disk system, and the distro and support would be by separate companies, eg Red Hat, or Lotus, or whatever.
Some of the larger vendors like Compaq and IBM, could support their own in-house one, but the customer could be given the choice of their own.
Large corporations could build and maintain their own "inhouse" versions as well
The whole idea of external libraries was so that programs could share code or minimalise system load. This is as true whether you think of DOS overlays, OS/2 DLLs, or whatever. The notion is already present in C (with header files). For example, under DOS, there is no reason, why say XTREE and NC could not be merged to provide different file management interfaces, and shared file viewers. This could be extended to a generic command line utility that simply views the named file.
When you set up an API for third party use, you are inviting other people to use your routines. Since they will call your library and use it with certian expectations, then it is up to you to meet your end of your deal.
You do not need to update the dll every time you update the product - look at VBRUN?00.DLL for proof of this. But if you have a DLL like, say, MFC42.DLL, where some programs use vers 4, and others use vers 6, then there is a course for concern.
This is probably a bigger concern for the open source vendors than the closed source vendors, purely because the former have a much faster release rate. For example, the EMX package for OS/2 is at 0.9e or something. Some programs have a minimal requirement, like 0.9c. But it is not beyond some future version to become incompatable with an earlier program. And then one has to run either the earlier or later version.
An alternate version would be to design some interfaces which users could put together different files. This sort of thing is used by File Commander/2, ZTBold, Object Desktop, which load external utilities seamlessly. So you do not need separate libraries to open ZIP or RAR or CAB files in these utilities. What you do is to have a dedicated ZIP or RAR or CAB utility, which programs can open, display and use seamlessly. Adding a new archive should be as easy as entering the name of an INI header to the ARCHIVES list.
One can use libraries intelligently, to minimise the amount of loaded and stored code. The power of the unix pipe is due to its ability to thread together divers peices into a meaningful thread.
The open software market has the room available to create intelligent libraries that may be used by diverse programs. Exploit this window of opportunity.
Lucky we don't have the Roman calendar. Their week was tied to the month, and the leap day was put in between 23 Feb and 24 Feb.
Their style was to have weeks of seven or eight days, with fixed dates as the "Sundays". Dates other than Sundays are counted to them, so a date that we would call 11, would be four days before the Ides.
With a little ingenuity, one could have a stock blank form for all months. If there are missing days, you just cross off some date on the calender. On the same system, we would have 7 month blanks, where we cross off 31, 30 and 29 if these don't apply. Except in the roman system you don't have to grab the tuesday blank.
The algorithm presented here is quite interesting, because if you know "doomsday" is tuesday, you can check the token dates to see if they are a tuesday as well: 5/9 9/5 7/11 11/7 4/4 6/6 8/8 10/10 12/12.
The old boxes like 486's used a lot less power than the modern things. We should seriously question whether we need every box to be a pentium 200+ to be useful. It's much more than they went to the moon on.
I have my old 486 and pentium on the same network, sharing the same monitor. I use the 486 more than the pentuim, because I don't need the speed when I type.
When I do need the speed, I fire up the pentuim.
Things like SETI, while they may use spare cycles and spare equipment, also chew power. What we really need is to consider options that chew less power.
I mean, you would probably complain if every car got to rev to the max the moment you turned the ignition.
One could include in the standard, some sort of macro language c-- that would allow the use of much of the same headers.
This means that you could write and test source codes in shell batches without the need to compile, and then when ready, compile, or that the same interface is used by shell scripts and program applications.
More importantly, it means that the same knowledge and tools can be applied to writing both scripts and code, and if c-- is more forgiving, like CEnvi used to be, a good way to learn and explore c in a meaningful way. {ps} it probably is, but I have not upgraded to vers 4, since there is no OS/2 support:) {/ps}
In the world of Windoze, there are those awful packages that have only an install function. You don't even know what its in the package unless you install it.
It's not just just what can screw up the OS. You may get some thing that you don't even want to install.
I have no objection to install packages, if
you can test them for integrety (even not in the host OS: imagine: testing an RPM package under DOS:)
NT still runs on a hacked version of OS/2 1.3. The GUI is a clone of the PM Shell.
And like all good clones, it preserves the bad bits.
Windows is preemptive. Look at this list of tasks it pre-empts.
It pre-emptively deletes files before you decide to.
It pre-emptively shuts down, so it can show its pretty blue screen.
It pre-emptively closes applications. Running a command from a console, with parameters is a good way of doing this:)
Since it does lots of prem-emptive things, it is a pre-emptive multitasker.
It mutates stating and stopping. It starts up to an array of blue screens (I call it rolling blue screens), and then you have to give it the three fingure salute to get it going (log on). Sort of like, foot in mouth.
Windows NT is stabler than Win 9x, because it was mutated off more of OS/2. What more can you say.
Hmmm. I seem to recall that there is an OS/2 pacemaker. Not the WPS thing, or even cmd.exe, but the robust kernel running a different shell. Just lucky they didn't try the pacemaker first. We put a new pacemaker in you ma'am, but you have to plug in every two hours...
If you ever teased apart some applications like bios upgrade disks, boot managers, diagonostic disks &c, you will find that they are simply a hacked from of DOS. I mean, the Windows install system is a hacked version of the standard mode Win 3.1 system.
If we're going to push Linux or OS/2 or DOS around for embedded systems - well - you got to start somewhere.
{flame note="look at nick"}But for the life of me, I can't see why they don't just stick with OS/2 and not fiddle around with DOS or Linux. OS/2 is as stable as Linux and as nimble as DOS.{/flame}
For those of us who use long numbers (base 120, for those who slept through history), pi is 3:16E8.E212.77..., and this means that PI day is 16 March, the PI time is nearly midnight.
Of note with pi, the best approximation of pi with four digits is: 7^7/8^6. In octal, pi is 3.1103755242, whereas this number is 3.110367 octal. This is also the best approximation of pi in the form 2^x.3^y.5^z.7^t where the numerator and denominator are less than 5H4=1E9!
Interestingly, I have not seen any convincing arguement why pi should be 3:16E8.E3 = 3.1415&c, rather than some other multiple of it. Or rather, why we should measure the ratio of the circumference to the diameter as 2pi, rather than, say 4c or 8c or something like this.
While there is a need for a circle constant, unlike e=2:8623.30E9.E3..=2.71828..., pi is not a constant that everyone who invents it will be drawn to the 3:16E8.E212=3.14159 value. The Arab who first found 35 places in decimal and sixty, evaluated the number 6:33E7.V4.24 = dec 6.28318...
It's all very nice to have lfndos in your utility kit, but it does not do you well if you have to bring up some box because someone discovers you know about computers.
DOS boot disks are not the sort of thing you carry around in your purse...
You can find it because there are two file tables for the file system, and the OS searches both.
If you run DEL "*~1.*" from a command line that supports extended wildcards, you will delete any file that resolves into a ~1 affix.
It is useful to note that the ~1 system reduces the 8.3 to ten 6.3 systems. Aggh.
The other reason why no one has dropped 8.3 is that everyone is doing LFN differently. OS/2 can not read Windows LFN, Windows can not read OS/2 LFNs. No need to bring Apple into it.
The other irritating feature is that LFN is supported when the GUI is loaded. You can not fix a LFN from a Win9x boot disk. You can not store Windows in a directory "c:\Microsoft Windows", or Windows is dragged into the "Program Files" directory (I've seen this happen). The DOS boot can't find it.:)
I'm not all together fussed with Long file names, since I suspect they show a lack of imagination.
My preference is to keep short names, and run some script over the file to extract the real contents from the file.
For example, you can pull the 'file description' from most Word processor documents. You can put a special comment in a script, and grep for those, eg grep "::~" *.BAT. I've even pulled data out of saved games:).
Long file names are a bugger when the tools do not support them. Try changing to "Program Files\Microsoft Offis\Offis\Winwart", without making an error. MS don't even load DOGKEY for it. NT4 is slightly better in CMD.EXE, if you hack the registry with an undocumented hack.
I prefer to store the file contents in a the 4DOS descriptions. These are visible in text files, so I do not need mount the source diskette.
Some programs depend on the target file being a particular name, these I accomidate with a file of the form $$rename.txt, of lines shortnme long file name.
Storing the file type as an extention is not stupid. What is, is MS's insistance that they be hidden. People run "pickie.mpeg.vbs" because they only see "pickie.mpeg". If they saw the.vbs then they would not likely run it. Also, if you abandon filetype in extentions, then you have very little idea that "erotica" is anything in particular. It could be anything from a rexx script to a mpeg to a vbs.
I use long file names, and use extentions. If I want different words, the name should be of the form "this.is.a.long.file.name.txt".
But I rather pull the data from the file itself, eg 'grep ":~" *.BAT'.
Name one? Name one? Gee it's so easy, if you know your history.
Something like 5% of all computer users are command line junkies. Have you ever used the command line in Windoze. Why do you think 4DOS, 4OS2 and 4NT have such a following...
What could happen is that the Windows command line might disappear. Even without it, the linux command line runs rings around both cmd.exe and 4nt.
Apart from that: TeX. [I prefer EmTeX over my Windoze and OS/2 wordprocessors] Yes, I know there are Windoze versions of TeX, but this is the real thing.
One should not look at a Linux emulator under Windows as runing something stable on something that's not, but as an opportunity for developors to write for Linux+Windows.
The biggest thing that killed off OS/2 apps was the fact that OS/2 could run Win31 apps very good. That is, OS/2 could run Word 6 in the Win-OS/2 session, so there was little incentive to port Word 6 to OS/2.
Just think. If Windows could run Line very good, then one could write Linux apps, and run them under different OSes. In this way, you could do open source, what Java tried before, and what MS despirately fears: "cross platform" Linux apps.
It is useful to remind ourselves of what the assorted charges and situations are.
Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market. This does not mean that they have 100% of it, but they do have a sufficient portion of the market that they can control prices without market penalty.
It is quite possible that the DOS GUI was got legitimately.
Inclusion of networking killed off a market for networking protocols into Windows for Workgroups, such as Netware Lite, Baynan Vines and so forth.
The inclusion of DOS killed the market for competitor DOSes: one need think of DR-DOS and its trial to see that this is the case.
Netscape
Browsers were free in the form of Mosaic. But the internet is driven by more than browsers: there are news clients, ftp clients, gophers &c.
Netscape made a browser that could handle gopher, news clients, ftp and so forth, and people were willing to pay $50 for the package, against the free Mosaic. In this way, they captured 80% of the market.
That one can do all these things in Netscape, and that it supported third-party plug-ins, meant that it was a desirable product that people want to use. It lead to the belief that it was a shell for running different applications.
With the advent of Sun's Java language, this meant that one could write a script or binary in Java, and use Netscape's windowing to write applications that run on any OS. This means that if you write an OS that supports Java and Netscape, you can handle all of these applications.
Microsoft's Response
Microsoft at first responded by selling a browser in competition with Netscape. When this failed to capture the market, they tried at first to give it away, and then to combine it with the OS.
Both of these are illegal actions. The price to market does not reveal the true price. If I sell A at $20 and B at $10, and you need A to use B, I could sell A at $30 and give B away.
Where you have a monopoly in A, then you can drive out all of the competitors for B, like B1. In this way, you are engaging in predatory pricing of B, funded by a monopoly in A.
In the Razor analogy, I could give A away and sell B at a price that gets the cost of A back quickly, like razors and razor-blades commonly are.
That IE is `free' just means that you are paying for it in Windows, whether or not you want it. But even this did not prevent people installing Netscape. Netscape were forced to drop their prices as well, but not given the space to charge for it elsewhere.
Windows was combined with IE, and a version of Windows without IE (or boot capacity) was offered. But since installing IE over windows replaces pre-existing files, the IE-less Windows 98 is in fact a knowing contempt of court.
Netscape was never a competitor to Windows. But there are elements bundled into windows that were separate products that Netscape compete with.
That there are still people downloading and installing the Windows version of Netscape or Opera, or Win98Lite [which removes browsers], implies that there is a separate market for a browser different to the OS, and people can still tell the difference. The enforced bundle of IE and Windows is therefore a tie. The tie is such that the product is not intended to be removed, even if you bought it. 98Lite is a program that removes IE.
The appeal judges have mistaken the relevant markets, because they see Netscape as a competitor to Windows. In fact, Netscape is a competitor to IE, and MS used a monopoly in one market [Windows] to foster a market in another [browsers, DOS, Peer networking].
With the appropiate tools and technique, anyone can hack at a lump of stone or splatter paint over a canvas, or write code.
If you have some grip on the outcome, you can make a reasonable hack at making the outcome look like what you wanted it to be.
Lots of creative programmers working in game shops are probably no different to the artists that Disney employ in their animation studios, in that they try to reproduce an overall vision.
Knowing what the software can yield is important to an artist. Knowing what the players will tolerate is important to the success. KQ1, for example, appealed to the computer generation of its time, low graphics and nerdy puzzles. By the time of KQ6, it was good graphics and simpler puzzles, but art, none the less.
Art has something more to do with capturing another's imagination and involvement. It might be possible to call VisiCalc `Art', but by the time it comes to Excel, it has become a tool.
Art is the fine end of a stretch that goes down to grunt-work. Hacking, painting, banging rocks, and writing are examples of work, the result of which falls between art and grunt work.
{offtopic note="prehaps, but we're talking about models for selling software here. This one opens up competition, not closes it"}
Consider the Linux Distro model as an alternate way of selling software. You could inject and break up the monopoly at the OEM stage.
Here's how it works. MS is forced to licence their OSes at competitive rates to Distros, like they do to OEMs now. The distro then makes up an install that installs it and/or other software, and sells it to OEMS (great and small).
So Corel could take Windows, and add to it, say Perfect Office, and a few other toys. Lotus could take Windows, and add SmartSuite and Netscape, and so on. This is something akin to the Linux distros. The distros would have in them the appropiate recovery disks and installs. Another vendor could make one out of Windows + MS Office.
I buy a computer, and I can then select the distro I would have on it. I could then select the distro off the shelf, and add it to the computer. This would replace the current OEM software.
The model could work, and encourage competition in the market. Vendors and retailers would not be locked into one supplier.
Possible workable packages right now are:
Windows + MS Office
Windows + Corel PerfectOffice
Windows + Lotus SmartSuite
OS/2 4.5 + Lotus SmartSuite 1.6 = eComm Station
BeOS + ???
Solaris + StarOffice
Linux distros.
BSD distros.
Apple OS/X86 + something
When you get the computer, you are given an OEM card, which you could then register to one of the distros. You could pay a bounty for a second one, if you want to make a second licence on the same machine, or some home grown thing.
This would put competition back into the distros and office suites, without choking the internet.
{/offtopic}
When you subscribe to a magazine, you are given copies issued for the duration of your subscription, and you can keep theses copies for ever, even past the end of the end of the period.
When you rent something, you must turn it back at the end of the paid time and/or usage.
Stardock has a subscription service. You can download the bits that you want while your subscription is valid. At the end of this time, the material you have remains available to you, within the limits of copyright law.
Pay per use, or pay per period is rental, or service, not subscription.
Slashdot Mirror
Much as I like the idea, you are going to have to put the run-time library on every box that runs it, and for every OS we want to browse the net with (eg BeOS, OS/2, Linux, BSD, UN*X, Windoze). Isn't it time we started to sit down and come up with a STANDARD!!!
And until then, stick with Java and HTML?
Single tasking productivity is all well and fine if no-one's waiting on your work, and you have total control. But very few people have this, so we have to multitask our activities.
Also, most people don't like to be on the end of a single-tasking help desk. Put your hand up if you like calling a help desk, and waiting an hour for an answer to a routine access request.
Multitasking is the answer - and you know that, for sure.
And yes, I do more under multitasking environments than under single environments, because I can use the "wasted" cycles in low priority background threads, which require little input. Checking on them gives me a break from the foregound threads, and helps me "look busy" for bosses who need that sort of thing.
The process is similar to a burger-bun monopoly insisting that every burger chain sells Coke. It just would not happen.
MS does not "own" the first load screen: this is the domain of the OEM, who assemble the machines. If an OEM does a deal with AOL or MSN, then they should be allowed to load that software. They're the ones supporting that product.
Also, MS would be using its market position in one market (OS) to gain a unfair advantage in another (free placement of their ISP), which becomes a predatory pricing issue [since their placements are at a lower cost than their competitors].
It's not the same as telling McDonalds not to sell their Macs elsewhere, it's more akin to telling Macs that if you use our buns for your burgers, you have to sell our softdrinks. Therein lies the difference.
For example, you could buy say, Red Hat Linux, or Lotus OS/2 or eCommStation, and run the install yourself. It would be better than the current recovery disk system, and the distro and support would be by separate companies, eg Red Hat, or Lotus, or whatever.
Some of the larger vendors like Compaq and IBM, could support their own in-house one, but the customer could be given the choice of their own.
Large corporations could build and maintain their own "inhouse" versions as well
A post box is where the letter gets sent: eg PO Box 1235, Anywhere.
A letter box is the thing that sits on the fence.
The whole idea of external libraries was so that programs could share code or minimalise system load. This is as true whether you think of DOS overlays, OS/2 DLLs, or whatever. The notion is already present in C (with header files). For example, under DOS, there is no reason, why say XTREE and NC could not be merged to provide different file management interfaces, and shared file viewers. This could be extended to a generic command line utility that simply views the named file.
When you set up an API for third party use, you are inviting other people to use your routines. Since they will call your library and use it with certian expectations, then it is up to you to meet your end of your deal.
You do not need to update the dll every time you update the product - look at VBRUN?00.DLL for proof of this. But if you have a DLL like, say, MFC42.DLL, where some programs use vers 4, and others use vers 6, then there is a course for concern.
This is probably a bigger concern for the open source vendors than the closed source vendors, purely because the former have a much faster release rate. For example, the EMX package for OS/2 is at 0.9e or something. Some programs have a minimal requirement, like 0.9c. But it is not beyond some future version to become incompatable with an earlier program. And then one has to run either the earlier or later version.
An alternate version would be to design some interfaces which users could put together different files. This sort of thing is used by File Commander/2, ZTBold, Object Desktop, which load external utilities seamlessly. So you do not need separate libraries to open ZIP or RAR or CAB files in these utilities. What you do is to have a dedicated ZIP or RAR or CAB utility, which programs can open, display and use seamlessly. Adding a new archive should be as easy as entering the name of an INI header to the ARCHIVES list.
One can use libraries intelligently, to minimise the amount of loaded and stored code. The power of the unix pipe is due to its ability to thread together divers peices into a meaningful thread. The open software market has the room available to create intelligent libraries that may be used by diverse programs. Exploit this window of opportunity.
I wonder if the ghost writer used ghost script :)
Their style was to have weeks of seven or eight days, with fixed dates as the "Sundays". Dates other than Sundays are counted to them, so a date that we would call 11, would be four days before the Ides.
With a little ingenuity, one could have a stock blank form for all months. If there are missing days, you just cross off some date on the calender. On the same system, we would have 7 month blanks, where we cross off 31, 30 and 29 if these don't apply. Except in the roman system you don't have to grab the tuesday blank.
The algorithm presented here is quite interesting, because if you know "doomsday" is tuesday, you can check the token dates to see if they are a tuesday as well: 5/9 9/5 7/11 11/7 4/4 6/6 8/8 10/10 12/12.
I have my old 486 and pentium on the same network, sharing the same monitor. I use the 486 more than the pentuim, because I don't need the speed when I type. When I do need the speed, I fire up the pentuim.
Things like SETI, while they may use spare cycles and spare equipment, also chew power. What we really need is to consider options that chew less power.
I mean, you would probably complain if every car got to rev to the max the moment you turned the ignition.
This means that you could write and test source codes in shell batches without the need to compile, and then when ready, compile, or that the same interface is used by shell scripts and program applications.
More importantly, it means that the same knowledge and tools can be applied to writing both scripts and code, and if c-- is more forgiving, like CEnvi used to be, a good way to learn and explore c in a meaningful way. {ps} it probably is, but I have not upgraded to vers 4, since there is no OS/2 support :) {/ps}
What we really need is to force some replacement for IDE, and stick to it.
It's not just just what can screw up the OS. You may get some thing that you don't even want to install.
I have no objection to install packages, if
NT still runs on a hacked version of OS/2 1.3. The GUI is a clone of the PM Shell.
And like all good clones, it preserves the bad bits.
Windows is preemptive. Look at this list of tasks it pre-empts.
- It pre-emptively deletes files before you decide to.
- It pre-emptively shuts down, so it can show its pretty blue screen.
- It pre-emptively closes applications. Running a command from a console, with parameters is a good way of doing this
:)
Since it does lots of prem-emptive things, it is a pre-emptive multitasker.It mutates stating and stopping. It starts up to an array of blue screens (I call it rolling blue screens), and then you have to give it the three fingure salute to get it going (log on). Sort of like, foot in mouth.
Windows NT is stabler than Win 9x, because it was mutated off more of OS/2. What more can you say.
If you ever teased apart some applications like bios upgrade disks, boot managers, diagonostic disks &c, you will find that they are simply a hacked from of DOS. I mean, the Windows install system is a hacked version of the standard mode Win 3.1 system.
If we're going to push Linux or OS/2 or DOS around for embedded systems - well - you got to start somewhere.
{flame note="look at nick"}But for the life of me, I can't see why they don't just stick with OS/2 and not fiddle around with DOS or Linux. OS/2 is as stable as Linux and as nimble as DOS.{/flame}
Think different. Think OS/2.
Of note with pi, the best approximation of pi with four digits is: 7^7/8^6. In octal, pi is 3.1103755242, whereas this number is 3.110367 octal. This is also the best approximation of pi in the form 2^x.3^y.5^z.7^t where the numerator and denominator are less than 5H4=1E9!
Interestingly, I have not seen any convincing arguement why pi should be 3:16E8.E3 = 3.1415&c, rather than some other multiple of it. Or rather, why we should measure the ratio of the circumference to the diameter as 2pi, rather than, say 4c or 8c or something like this.
While there is a need for a circle constant, unlike e=2:8623.30E9.E3..=2.71828..., pi is not a constant that everyone who invents it will be drawn to the 3:16E8.E212=3.14159 value. The Arab who first found 35 places in decimal and sixty, evaluated the number 6:33E7.V4.24 = dec 6.28318...
DOS boot disks are not the sort of thing you carry around in your purse...
If you run DEL "*~1.*" from a command line that supports extended wildcards, you will delete any file that resolves into a ~1 affix.
It is useful to note that the ~1 system reduces the 8.3 to ten 6.3 systems. Aggh.
The other reason why no one has dropped 8.3 is that everyone is doing LFN differently. OS/2 can not read Windows LFN, Windows can not read OS/2 LFNs. No need to bring Apple into it.
The other irritating feature is that LFN is supported when the GUI is loaded. You can not fix a LFN from a Win9x boot disk. You can not store Windows in a directory "c:\Microsoft Windows", or Windows is dragged into the "Program Files" directory (I've seen this happen). The DOS boot can't find it. :)
My preference is to keep short names, and run some script over the file to extract the real contents from the file.
For example, you can pull the 'file description' from most Word processor documents. You can put a special comment in a script, and grep for those, eg grep "::~" *.BAT. I've even pulled data out of saved games :).
Long file names are a bugger when the tools do not support them. Try changing to "Program Files\Microsoft Offis\Offis\Winwart", without making an error. MS don't even load DOGKEY for it. NT4 is slightly better in CMD.EXE, if you hack the registry with an undocumented hack.
I prefer to store the file contents in a the 4DOS descriptions. These are visible in text files, so I do not need mount the source diskette.
Some programs depend on the target file being a particular name, these I accomidate with a file of the form $$rename.txt, of lines shortnme long file name.
Storing the file type as an extention is not stupid. What is, is MS's insistance that they be hidden. People run "pickie.mpeg.vbs" because they only see "pickie.mpeg". If they saw the .vbs then they would not likely run it. Also, if you abandon filetype in extentions, then you have very little idea that "erotica" is anything in particular. It could be anything from a rexx script to a mpeg to a vbs.
I use long file names, and use extentions. If I want different words, the name should be of the form "this.is.a.long.file.name.txt".
But I rather pull the data from the file itself, eg 'grep ":~" *.BAT'.
Something like 5% of all computer users are command line junkies. Have you ever used the command line in Windoze. Why do you think 4DOS, 4OS2 and 4NT have such a following...
What could happen is that the Windows command line might disappear. Even without it, the linux command line runs rings around both cmd.exe and 4nt.
Apart from that: TeX. [I prefer EmTeX over my Windoze and OS/2 wordprocessors] Yes, I know there are Windoze versions of TeX, but this is the real thing.
The biggest thing that killed off OS/2 apps was the fact that OS/2 could run Win31 apps very good. That is, OS/2 could run Word 6 in the Win-OS/2 session, so there was little incentive to port Word 6 to OS/2.
Just think. If Windows could run Line very good, then one could write Linux apps, and run them under different OSes. In this way, you could do open source, what Java tried before, and what MS despirately fears: "cross platform" Linux apps.
One migh A worthy goal, if I must say so.
If MS stole off these people, then these people are entitled to lost earnings threefold.
Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market. This does not mean that they have 100% of it, but they do have a sufficient portion of the market that they can control prices without market penalty.
It is quite possible that the DOS GUI was got legitimately.
Inclusion of networking killed off a market for networking protocols into Windows for Workgroups, such as Netware Lite, Baynan Vines and so forth.
The inclusion of DOS killed the market for competitor DOSes: one need think of DR-DOS and its trial to see that this is the case.
Netscape
Browsers were free in the form of Mosaic. But the internet is driven by more than browsers: there are news clients, ftp clients, gophers &c.
Netscape made a browser that could handle gopher, news clients, ftp and so forth, and people were willing to pay $50 for the package, against the free Mosaic. In this way, they captured 80% of the market.
That one can do all these things in Netscape, and that it supported third-party plug-ins, meant that it was a desirable product that people want to use. It lead to the belief that it was a shell for running different applications.
With the advent of Sun's Java language, this meant that one could write a script or binary in Java, and use Netscape's windowing to write applications that run on any OS. This means that if you write an OS that supports Java and Netscape, you can handle all of these applications.
Microsoft's Response
Microsoft at first responded by selling a browser in competition with Netscape. When this failed to capture the market, they tried at first to give it away, and then to combine it with the OS.
Both of these are illegal actions. The price to market does not reveal the true price. If I sell A at $20 and B at $10, and you need A to use B, I could sell A at $30 and give B away. Where you have a monopoly in A, then you can drive out all of the competitors for B, like B1. In this way, you are engaging in predatory pricing of B, funded by a monopoly in A.
In the Razor analogy, I could give A away and sell B at a price that gets the cost of A back quickly, like razors and razor-blades commonly are.
That IE is `free' just means that you are paying for it in Windows, whether or not you want it. But even this did not prevent people installing Netscape. Netscape were forced to drop their prices as well, but not given the space to charge for it elsewhere.
Windows was combined with IE, and a version of Windows without IE (or boot capacity) was offered. But since installing IE over windows replaces pre-existing files, the IE-less Windows 98 is in fact a knowing contempt of court.
Netscape was never a competitor to Windows. But there are elements bundled into windows that were separate products that Netscape compete with.
That there are still people downloading and installing the Windows version of Netscape or Opera, or Win98Lite [which removes browsers], implies that there is a separate market for a browser different to the OS, and people can still tell the difference. The enforced bundle of IE and Windows is therefore a tie. The tie is such that the product is not intended to be removed, even if you bought it. 98Lite is a program that removes IE.
The appeal judges have mistaken the relevant markets, because they see Netscape as a competitor to Windows. In fact, Netscape is a competitor to IE, and MS used a monopoly in one market [Windows] to foster a market in another [browsers, DOS, Peer networking].
With the appropiate tools and technique, anyone can hack at a lump of stone or splatter paint over a canvas, or write code.
If you have some grip on the outcome, you can make a reasonable hack at making the outcome look like what you wanted it to be.
Lots of creative programmers working in game shops are probably no different to the artists that Disney employ in their animation studios, in that they try to reproduce an overall vision.
Knowing what the software can yield is important to an artist. Knowing what the players will tolerate is important to the success. KQ1, for example, appealed to the computer generation of its time, low graphics and nerdy puzzles. By the time of KQ6, it was good graphics and simpler puzzles, but art, none the less.
Art has something more to do with capturing another's imagination and involvement. It might be possible to call VisiCalc `Art', but by the time it comes to Excel, it has become a tool.
Art is the fine end of a stretch that goes down to grunt-work. Hacking, painting, banging rocks, and writing are examples of work, the result of which falls between art and grunt work.
Consider the Linux Distro model as an alternate way of selling software. You could inject and break up the monopoly at the OEM stage.
Here's how it works. MS is forced to licence their OSes at competitive rates to Distros, like they do to OEMs now. The distro then makes up an install that installs it and/or other software, and sells it to OEMS (great and small).
So Corel could take Windows, and add to it, say Perfect Office, and a few other toys. Lotus could take Windows, and add SmartSuite and Netscape, and so on. This is something akin to the Linux distros. The distros would have in them the appropiate recovery disks and installs. Another vendor could make one out of Windows + MS Office.
I buy a computer, and I can then select the distro I would have on it. I could then select the distro off the shelf, and add it to the computer. This would replace the current OEM software.
The model could work, and encourage competition in the market. Vendors and retailers would not be locked into one supplier.
Possible workable packages right now are:
- Windows + MS Office
- Windows + Corel PerfectOffice
- Windows + Lotus SmartSuite
- OS/2 4.5 + Lotus SmartSuite 1.6 = eComm Station
- BeOS + ???
- Solaris + StarOffice
- Linux distros.
- BSD distros.
- Apple OS/X86 + something
When you get the computer, you are given an OEM card, which you could then register to one of the distros. You could pay a bounty for a second one, if you want to make a second licence on the same machine, or some home grown thing.This would put competition back into the distros and office suites, without choking the internet. {/offtopic}
When you rent something, you must turn it back at the end of the paid time and/or usage.
Stardock has a subscription service. You can download the bits that you want while your subscription is valid. At the end of this time, the material you have remains available to you, within the limits of copyright law.
Pay per use, or pay per period is rental, or service, not subscription.